[MASS EDIT REQUEST] Prince & The Revolution split

In a previous thread, it was decided to split The New Power Generation, as The NPG have had separate credits without Prince.
Naturally, discussion has moved onto Prince's other bands, as it is the same situation, and it was suggested to create separate threads for each of them to prevent confusion as the NPG one was long enough.

So in this thread we discuss Prince And The Revolution. The logical consequence of the NPG split is that The Revolution is also split, as they have also had 'solo' releases where Prince isn't credited. (As an alias and as an invalid ANV)

So, any thoughts?

DevilDinosaur
So, any thoughts?

+1

DevilDinosaur
as it is the same situation

please consider it's indeed not the "same situation": While the NPG & 3RDEYEGIRL have own releases it's not the same for The Revolution... they have no own releases - just a few credits on some releases - and AFAIK yet own releases are the basis to create a PAN... otherwise enlighen me - i'm open for the issue :-)

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
please consider it's indeed not the "same situation": While the NPG & 3RDEYEGIRL have own releases it's not the same for The Revolution... they have no own releases - just a few credits on some releases - and AFAIK yet own releases are the basis to create a PAN... otherwise enlighen me - i'm open for the issue :-)

How are we supposed to give them 'solo' credits without a PAN then? Keep on using that invaid ANV?
And you're the one who created The Revolution anyway...

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
the problem is it's falsley entered as ANV ...
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/artist/96774-Prince-And-The-Revolution?type=Credits&filter_anv=1&anv=Revolution,%20The

it should be: The Revolution ;-)

http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/408989?page=1#3798769

DevilDinosaur
The logical consequence of the NPG split is that The Revolution is also split

yep: +1

DevilDinosaur
Keep on using that invaid ANV?

no, as you said it's invalid ;-)

DevilDinosaur
And you're the one who created Revolution, The anyway...

that was almost 9 Months ago when i was new here - ask bobbley what kind of anrchist i was - but i think since then i learned a lot about the database.

the fact that this PAN & ANV are invalid was out of my radar until the big NPG-split thread and it's on my agenda to fix it sooner or later - but in the moment it's on hiatus because of this new developement and we will see what will happen with Prince And The Revolution - we are just s with (oh wonder, the same) opinion to split them too

but those who following the gudelines 1:1 and know everything should also participate and tell us what's O.K. and what's not.

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
no, as you said it's invalid ;-)

Exactamundo ;)

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
that was almost 9 Months ago when i was new here

But you say that like it was wrong. I think creating the PAN was the right thing to do - especially if that is how it was credited on the release ;)

this special situation is too tricky for me to decide
I think gurus like
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz//taklit-sarut
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz//opdiner

Should say something

Or some s from here
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/401757?page=2

-1 As noted, The Revolution has no separate releases. This should be kept as a group IMNSHO.

They don't have any separate releases as main artists, but they do have separate credits on quite a few releases.

A full split is hardly necessary, based on a few credits as ing artists. Handle them like the E-Street Band:
The E-Street Band (1 single; 3 appearances; 6 unofficial releases where they are split from Springsteen, should investigate those)
Like the E-Street Band with Springsteen, the Revolution can remain as part of a group with Prince, with a separate PAN for isolated credits elsewhere. This can then be revisited if it turns out there is a sizable independent Revolution discography.
I would remove the alias, though; the Revolution without Prince is not the same as Prince And The Revolution.

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
almost 9 Months ago when i was new here - ask  bobbley what kind of anrchist i was

...those were the days, my friend.

ThomasP64
A full split is hardly necessary, based on a few credits as ing artists.

ThomasP64
This can then be revisited if it turns out there is a sizable independent Revolution discography.

What's the magic number? IMO, it's entirely inconsistent to split Prince from the NPG and not the Revolution. There's no album by just The Revolution, so they shouldn't be split? Where did that standard come from? There are credits to just The Revolution (on albums that aren't even by Prince!).

ThomasP64
Handle them like the E-Street Band

They're next! :)

truedream
What's the magic number? IMO, it's entirely inconsistent to split Prince from the NPG and not the Revolution. There's no album by just The Revolution, so they shouldn't be split? Where did that standard come from? There are credits to just The Revolution (on albums that aren't even by Prince!).

Yeah, what he said.

truedream
There are credits to just The Revolution (on albums that aren't even by Prince!).

oh really???? Please show me that one...

And please exclude Apollonia and Jill Jones: those are indeed 100% Prince just the babe of the day on the cover ;-)

You know exactly what he means. They aren't "officially" Prince albums

DevilDinosaur
You know exactly what he means. They aren't "officially" Prince albums

Yeah, what he said. :)

A Jill Jones album is a Jill Jones album.

DevilDinosaur
The logical consequence of the NPG split is that The Revolution is also split, as they have also had 'solo' releases where Prince isn't credited.

truedream
tompowers64
Handle them like the E-Street Band
They're next! :)

There is a trademark on "PRINCE AND THE REVOLUTION"
It is owned by PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES CORPORATION. Guess who owns Paisley Park Studios. Could it be...Prince?
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:m5r7h5.3.1
Bruce Springsteen was the initial registrant on a trademark on "BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN & THE E STREET BAND" There are separate trademarks on the E Street Band and Bruce Springsteen; all three are now commonly owned.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4810:m5r7h5.2.3
Based on this,I would say a legal relationship exists involving each band. I vote no on any split for either. The E Strret Band has an independent trademark, so it appears there is an intent to cover the band for performances independently of Bruce.

,

DevilDinosaur
In a previous thread, it was decided to split Prince & The New Power Generation into Prince & New Power Generation, The, as The NPG have had separate credits without Prince.

There are trademarks for New Power Generation and NPG, but not for Prince and the New Power Generation. However, it looks like they are both owned by Paisley Park, so there is probably still a legal relationship. A split may have been premature.

EDIT: Prince & 3RDEYEGIRL was raised in the previous thread, There is a trademark on 3RDEYEGIRL, but not on "Prince & 3RDEYEGIRL" However, the trademark is owned by NPG Music Publishing, which is owned by Prince.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:8yylze.13.1

ThomasP64
There are trademarks for New Power Generation and NPG, but not for Prince and the New Power Generation.

Are you sure?

He can let me know if I'm wrong, but I don't think nik even cares about that. I think what he was advising is a split when there is artist X, artist X & Y, and artist Y, and it's causing a problem for s.

So are we going to split Jon Gagan. No separate releases, either. Does it really make sense to split a band off when they have absolutely no separate existence at all? I think not. The same applies for Prince And The Revolution.

-1
no seperate releses - no split
if it's gonna be explained in the profile that the band was sometimes credited without Prince for various stuff there should be no problems for s confused in a big musical world

truedream
Are you sure?

Not that I could find. Feel free to search at the Patent and Trademark Office website (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4801:kyqrpv.1.1 ). I think the trademarks and their ownership establish a legal relationship between owner (Prince or Springsteen) and band. So I don't think they should be split.

-1 for this from me as well.

This is not the same situation as with Prince & The NPG. The Revolution never really evolved to a unit of their own. There's not going to be same kind of confusion.

Fauni-Gena
No separate releases, either. Does it really make sense to split a band off when they have absolutely no separate existence at all? I think not.

Agreed. And even they had a separate existence, IMO it doesn't automatically mean that they should be split off. That shouldn't be the only criteria to split off a band.

ThomasP64
However, it looks like they are both owned by Paisley Park, so there is probably still a legal relationship. A split may have been premature.

Prince owns everything. ;p So there's always a legal relationship with him and his "protégés". The NPG case is a lot more complicated, and the split was more of a compromise between two opposing sides than anything else.

Edit: added a missing word

auboisdormant
Prince owns everything. ;p So there's always a legal relationship with him and his "protégés". The NPG case is a lot more complicated, and the split was more of a compromise between two opposing sides than anything else.

Sorry, I really have no interest in Prince or the Symbol or whatever he calls himself at any given time. So I didn't really pay attention to the first thread. I don't know if any of the info on trademarks actually helps or not.

ThomasP64
in Prince or the Symbol or whatever he calls himself

I called him Mr. Symbol Thingy in the last thread and a couple of people got quite bent out of shape about it :D

Fauni-Gena
So are we going to split Ottmar Liebert And Luna Negra too, just because there are a couple of credits for Luna Negra?

Well, no one's brought it up until now.

julass
if it's gonna be explained in the profile that the band was sometimes credited without Prince for various stuff there should be no problems for s confused in a big musical world

auboisdormant
There's not going to be same kind of confusion.

Except that Purple Rain is not on the Prince page, and according to Discogs, Prince isn't even a member of Prince And The Revolution. It's Prince Rogers Nelson. So there isn't even a direct link from the Prince page to where Purple Rain is. I think that's counter-intuitive and confusing for a lot of s.

Fauni-Gena
I called him Mr. Symbol Thingy in the last thread and a couple of people got quite bent out of shape about it :D

Well, I'm in for it now...

ThomasP64
Sorry, I really have no interest in Prince or the Symbol or whatever he calls himself at any given time. So I didn't really pay attention to the first thread.

Well, that was kinda obvious. ;-)

I think even the die-hard fans have lost track of all his antics... I just occasionally like his music, don't really care about anything else.

truedream
Except that Purple Rain is not on the Prince page, and according to Discogs, Prince isn't even a member of Prince And The Revolution. It's Prince Rogers Nelson. So there isn't even a direct link from the Prince page to where Purple Rain is. I think that's counter-intuitive and confusing for a lot of s.

That's a completely different issue. That's because we can only list the real name alias as a member. Equally it's confusing that [Invalid Artist] is not listed as a member of Marky Mark & The Funky Bunch - but surely that is not a reason to split off any group. Rather we should consider if it would be beneficial to also list Prince as a member - which would require a guideline change. And that's a different topic.

auboisdormant
I just occasionally like his music, don't really care about anything else.

That describes me as well.

truedream
Except that Purple Rain is not on the Prince page

Still my favorite of his, no matter where we list it :) As always, group releases don't go on the solo artist page. I don't know a good way around that one but I understand why people find it confusing or annoying.

Fauni-Gena
I don't know a good way around that one but I understand why people find it confusing or annoying.

+1

auboisdormant
I think even the die-hard fans have lost track of all his antics... I just occasionally like his music, don't really care about anything else.

+ 10

and i'mjust collecting / documenting physical releases - like others do with stamps or empty coke bottles

.

DevilDinosaur
As an alias

i think it's not a alias of Prince And The Revolution - but . . . who am i? . . . just my two cents

DevilDinosaur
and as an invalid ANV)

in progress

auboisdormant
-1 for this from me as well.

Same here

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
i think it's not a alias of Prince And The Revolution - but . . . who am i? . . . just my two cents

Agreed. Remove the alias; link through the profile descriptions.

Can someone voting -1 please explain how the relationship between The Revolution and Prince is different from the NPG and Prince? I feel like some of these -1s were -1s on the NPG, but that went through...

"Prince And The Revolution" is a group name. It was used fairly consistently as a group name, with the exception of a few minor credits on records produced by Prince or his company (with the exception of the single design; unless the Revolution moonlighted as graphic designers, I suspect that's wrong). It was trademarked as a group name; the trademark is owned by Prince.

They are a backing band, with basically no existence independently of Prince.

NPG actually put out independent records as a main artist. Prince may have been pulling the strings (probably was), but at least they had independent releases. The relationship between Prince and NPG is more like The J.B.'s. James Brown produced releases by the J.B.'s, who also served as his backing band.

Those designer credits are indeed wrong, and I made a comment and explanation in the wrongly correct voted sub history: http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=3235437#latest

Just read this at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_%28musician%29
In 1991, PRN Music Corporation assigned the trademarks Prince, The Time, Paisley Park, New Power Generation, and Prince and the Revolution to Paisley Park Enterprises.

And cites:
US Patent and Trade Office. Reel/Frame: 0805/0848 and 0805/0880.

So my suspicion that Prince & The NPG is a legal entity nik advised splitting is apparently incorrect.

If this is a npg related post, I think it belongs in the npg split thread
(I wil give you my opinion there)
;-)

Not what I meant at all. Don't split Prince And The Revolution.

Prince & NPG split is good.

truedream
In 1991

Although, how does this apply to release from prior to 1991 (as in, their entire discography)?

truedream
Although, how does this apply to release from prior to 1991 (as in, their entire discography)?

Asg patents or trademarks after issuance means ownership was transferred from one entity to another. In this case, Prince probably transferred ownership from one corporate entity that he controlled to another corporate entity that he controlled. He owns both PRN and Paisley Park (See discussion above). Since Prince controlled the trademarks both before and after the change of assignment, there is essentially no effect that Discogs needs to concern itself with.

ThomasP64
Since Prince controlled the trademarks both before and after the change of assignment, there is essentially no effect that Discogs needs to concern itself with.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
It's what you were saying all along.

Strongly -1 to the split. It's a group and intended as such. The split IMO is a nonsense.

^ +1

OT: unfortuneateley you didn't participate here

Ok, so now there's notes on both artist pages and fleshed out:
The Revolution

...And I also corrected that artwork credit for this release:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=3235437#latest

DevilDinosaur
now there's notes on both artist pages and fleshed out

NOTE: Only use this artist if The Revolution are credited WITHOUT Prince. If they are credited with Prince, please use Prince And The Revolution

it was not really nessesary to add that line on this prominent position.

Because such kind of "loud" warnings are installed if the same error happen again and again on a regular basis - what's IIRC yet never was the case - so i moved it to the end :-)

personally i would also use as main image one from the active era 1983 - 1986
(not some from mid 2010's from a unique retrospection show)

DevilDinosaur
...And I also corrected that artwork credit for this release:
http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/history?release=3235437#latest

But they appear on the release as

www.therevolution.com.au

Not

The Revolution

Like: www.copycatsmedia.com

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
But they appear on the release as

www.therevolution.

Not

The Revolution

That can be an ANV IIRC.

removed artists from profiles:

Dez Dickerson [1979-1983] & Gayle Chapman [1979-1980] both were in the unnamed band
bevore "The Revolution" foundation = the don't belong in the profiles ;-)

+1

For what it's worth I would split Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band too. There should be a single page where all of Prince's releases are located. As it stands, it is very confusing/frustrating.

Back in day there was always a sense that The Revolution was separate from Prince. The Family and Wendy & Lisa were talked about as off-shoots of The Revolution not Prince & The Revolution.

jaseywacey
As it stands, it is very confusing/frustrating

yes it is, and...

jaseywacey
There should be a single page where all of [ANY ARTISTS] releases are located.

this is a simple display issue and can/should be solved with specific database software upgrade but not by change valid data

OT: such requests belong to the development forums http://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/topic/843 and i'm sure there are already a few similar issues...

.

OLDFRIENDSFORSALE
personally i would also use as main image one from the active era 1983 - 1986
(not some from mid 2010's from a unique retrospection show)

OK - try to find one without Prince